11 of 1913 - A resolution directing City Attorney to appeal the case of Salt Lake City versus Salt Lake Investmen REMARKS: Resolution No:
By Commissioner Keyser
Directing City Attorney to
appeal the case of S. L. C.
vs. Salt Lake Investment Co.
READ AND ADOPTED,
JAN ci 313
_ _ .
ROLL CALL
Salt Lake City, Utah,JAN..._P.:.1%13 .........19z__.....
fVOTING Yea xo I move that resolution No.............1 ....... by Mrs ........._....
be adopted.
Keyser ,_.
Koine _. ......
Lawrence . 11/44srldt`''
Morris I_...
Mr.Chairman . . . . ....
I
RESULT - - .._.......
CORPORATION COUNSEL -
H.J.DININNY
C'TY ATTORNE` LEGAL DEPARTMENT
AARON MYERS, IsTASSY
W.W. LITTLE, 2".. ASRr
Salt Lake City, Utah, January 15, 1913.
Hon. George L. ILe yser,
Corr':issioner of Parks and Public Property.
Dear Sir: -
In the matter of the suit of Salt Lake City vs. The Salt Lake
Invef tm_ert Come ny to recover parts of Sect ions 11 and 15 , Township 1
south, Ranvre 1 east of Salt Lake Meridian, the facts appear from the
abstracts furnished as fellows :
October 26 , 1569 , Daniel H. Tells , tilen LI°-yor, purchased for Salt
Lake City a part of Sec ' ion 11 from. James Tempest and wife, and on the
same day Purchased a part of Section 15 from Isaac C'ood and wife , each
tract consistin of 160 acres.
Salt Lake County in 1891 levied a tax upon Section 11 as the property
of James Tempest, and thereafter sold the same to Salt Lake County; there-
after many sales of this property were had for taxes , and tax deeds
passed until finally the Salt Lake Investment Company acquired a tax title
to Section 11. That part of Section 15 conveyed to Daniel Hi, Trells was
sold for taxes of 1893, assessed against Isaac rood and wife , and there-
after by numerous tax sales and tax deeds cor_veyin said property, the
Salt Lake Investment Company acquired a tax title.
Under the organic law and the laws of the Territory of Utah, the
property of Salt Lake City was exempt from taxation, and the pretended
levy and sale of said property by Salt Lake County was unlawful. As
stated by Mr. Moon at a mcetin of the Board of Commissioners , he being
the president of the Salt Lake Investment Company at the ti .e , as he still
is , when he discovered the condition of the title , applied to the Board
R S O L U - I O II .
. \'HEREAS, The Salt Lake Investment Company, corporation, by
its President, _-". T. goon, and other interested parties, on the
31st of December, 1912, at a meeting of the Board of Commissioner-
duly held on said date, entered a verbal protest against the fur-
ther prosecution and appeal of the case of Salt Lake City vs. The
Salt Lake Investment Company, involvir_;7a question of tax title;
and
P E2EAS, The matter has been duly considered by the Board of
Corset sieners:
=TO'. .PEP PORE, Be it resolved, That the Board of Commie sioncs
of Belt Lake City, Utth, believe it to be their duty as tru:,!tees
of the People of Salt Lake City to uce every legal man._ to pre-
serve to the people their property ri;I:ts, there bei: a legal
question involved in said case, the City Attor__ey is hereby direc'od
to take flea: lecessary steps to appeal said. case
Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of
Salt Lake City, January 16, 1913.
Mayor 16 ie City Recorder--
of County Commissioners to refund the taxes theretofore paid. That board
pointed out to him that they had received only a percentage of the tax,
that Salt Lake City received a greater portion, and that the board would
wi.11inPly refund if Salt Lake City refunded, end upon that b^.tis claims
that Salt Lake City was unjust in not refundin ; the money paid for taxes.
From a legal view point, Mr. Moon' s logic is erroneous for the
reason that Salt Lake City should not be compelled to pay an illegal and
unjust tax either to Moon or his company, or the county, and Moon in
dealing in tax titles must be held to have done so at his peril.
It seems that in 1905, the Salt Lake Investment Company brought an
action to quiet title against one Martha J. I'arriss and numerous others,
to quiet title to nine separate and distinnt parcels of property lying
within Salt Lake County, not contiguous to each other, but scattered east
and west of Salt Lake Meridian, south of Salt Lake City, including parts
of Sections 11 and 15, basing its claim upon the illegal tax titles as
aforesaid. For some reason unknown to the writer, and apparently without
investigation of any kind, the then city attorneys for Salt Lake City
entered into an agreement which the writer believes to have been without
the power of said attorneys, whereby a decree was entered in favor of
the Salt Lake Investment Company and against Salt Lake City, quieting;
title to the tracts of land hereina Bove described, except that Salt Lake
City wrIs given an easement through that portion of Section 15 through
which Parley's Canyon Conduit passes.
that
The view 21 the writer takes of this case is:
1. That the attorneys for Salt Lake City had no power or authority
whatever to give €:ray by agreement or otherwise , any property belonging
to Salt Lake City.
-3-
2. That neither the city council nor the commission could, without
adequate consideration, divest the city of any title to property owned
by it, although the law vests the control of all public property in the
Board. of Commissioners, and gives them power to sell or lease for the
benefit cf the city any of its property.
3. In matters of this nature one always meets the question of lathes
on the part of the city, and thtt is the only ouestion in this case that
could defeat the city in its effort to recover the property for the
people.
As to that part of the property which lea sold to Lur_din, Davis,
Howe Cc Company, and. the Pioneer Land Company, the question involved is
';?as the judgment or decree entered in 'he case void? If void, they could
take no advantage of being innocent i'L64A. purchasers, but would be bound
by the record. If voidable, the city, the writer believes, could not
recover that particular property. That, however is the direct question
in issue.
The writer is of the opinion that no court ought to aid in the per-
petuation of a fraud, nor permit e person to take advantage of his own
wrong. That the court will do in the matter is of course, a question.
Nevertheless, the writer believes that it is the duty of the Board. of
Commissioners as the representatives of the people, to test this question
in the court of last resort.
Very respectfully,
i?.
•